Thursday, December 22, 2011

Every holiday season, my mom and I try to see a movie together.We only have one rule:It has to be a “talky” film, as my mom calls it.We’ve never analyzed what that means, but it usually comes down to whether the movie features women in leading roles; there just aren’t a lot of “talky” films focusing on men.

Normally, it’s a struggle to find even one film that fits the bill— at least, to find one playing in the small town where my parents live.The one exception was 1988, when we couldn’t choose just one and wound up seeing three movies together:Working Girl, Beaches, and the Accidental Tourist.My mom still talks about that year.

So after arriving home for the holidays yesterday, I scanned the local movie listings with my mom.We have ten options:Alvin & The Chipmunks, Arthur Christmas, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, Mission Impossible, the Muppets Movie, New Year’s Eve, Sherlock Holmes, The Sitter, and Twilight: Breaking Dawn.

Ugh.We start by eliminating Alvin, Arthur Christmas, and Hugo.Our definition of “talky” doesn’t include animated movies aimed at kids.And is it a coincidence that every one of them features a male protagonist?

The two formula action films (Mission Impossible and Sherlock Holmes) also get crossed off quickly.Ditto with The Sitter, a juvenile comedy with mediocre reviews.

We also eliminate Breaking Dawn, the latest installment in the Twilight series.I’ve already seen it, and even for a fan of the series (which I am, sort of) this movie is literally painful to watch.Bella, the heroine, has become one of the most passive women ever portrayed in film.She spends the movie:(1) getting married at the ripe old age of 18; (2) discovering she’s pregnant on her honeymoon; and (3) going through a tortuous pregnancy that’s almost certain to kill her, all while refusing to even consider abortion as an option.This would bore my mom to tears and cause her to yell at the screen.

We also nix The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo after reading one review.It does feature a kick-ass woman in a leading role.But it also includes extreme violence, including two rape scenes. Neither of us can bear to watch that.

We briefly consider New Year’s Eve, which includes great women actors like Hilary Swank and Halle Berry.But it gets crossed off after we read the first line of Roger Ebert’s review:“A dreary plod through the sands of time until finally the last grain has trickled through the hourglass of cinematic sludge.”Ouch.

Which leaves us with…The Muppets.Which I’ve already seen, and which I can’t even pretend to pitch to my mom as a “talky” film.It also has almost no female characters, aside from a few briefly satisfying “hi-ya!” moments from Miss Piggy and a blah role for Amy Adams as the leading man’s barely visible girlfriend.

We could drive 60 miles to the nearest big city to see a film like Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs or Charlize Theron in Young Adult.But it shouldn’t be such a challenge to find a “talky” film in wide release during the holiday movie season – one that focuses on women and their lives, their relationships, and their work. From the recent success of Bridesmaids and The Help, we know there is a huge market for such films – but Hollywood can’t seem to make more than one or two a year.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Occupiers all viscerally sense the problem: extreme economic inequality. They all cite a lack of fairness — a lack of opportunity. They also agree that the status quo is failing.

But when it comes to women, Occupy is really a microcosm of the greater culture at large. This should … greatly embarrass those in the movement who see themselves as revolutionaries.

Just as when misogynists claimed the women accusing Julian Assange of rape were in fact part of a CIA-planned “honey trap”, there are misogynists calling the acknowledgment of gender inequality in the “Occupations” a plot by the powers-that-be to delegitimize the movement. Little do they know that any participant’s disregard for the concerns of women in the movement, and their lack of willingness to acknowledge that women face sexism in society, will do plenty more to delegitimize Occupy than anything these alleged powers-that-be could do with their sudden, uncharacteristic feminism. (Society’s power networks have never been known for being particularly woman-friendly, so claims that this is a government or corporate plot seem specious.)

How about this: to pre-empt these nefarious powers attempting to delegitimize the Occupy movement by pointing out how it reproduces society’s inequalities, why doesn’t Occupy instead model what an equal society should look like by being actively feminist, anti-racist, and welcoming to all other marginalized identities?

The argument that we must ignore all inequality except for class inequality is a surefire way to create an all white male movement that benefits white males. The American Socialist Party in the early 20th century did the same thing, and we can see how powerful they are now. Quote:

[The Socialist Party's] female members were not encouraged to join other women’s organizations in the fight for women’s rights ans suffrage. The class struggle was to have priority over matters of gender equality.

Not only does an equal class, unequal gender vision of the future serve to benefit men and turn off women, but it is impossible. How is it possible for unequal people to maintain equal wealth or wages or standards of living?

No one is a single identity. Each of us is a whole person with many different identities around race, ethnicity, (dis)ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, religion, age, etc. An individual’s class is heavily affected by their other identities. Black and brown people have considerably less wealth than white people, women still earn less than men for equivalent work, trans people are more likely to be homeless than cisgendered people, etc. If you can’t bring that into your class analysis, you are doing some shitty class analysis.

To call women, or people of color, or other marginalized groups abettors of the oppressors for raising their particular concerns is to be willfully blind to the real way class works, and to silence those who experience the preponderance of its negative effects… i.e. the best and most motivated potential activists.

Havolvá has been blogging since 2008 about social justice issues, including women's rights, at her blog, The Czech. In her non-virtual life, she has spent the last 8 years working in non-profits, focusing on the provision of basic human rights to America's most marginalized people.

I am sure of this, as I am part of an amazing organization, Law Students for Reproductive Justice. LSRJ is the country’s only student-led national nonprofit that is training and organizing future legal and policy advocates to be committed to ensuring that all people can exercise the rights and access the resources they need to thrive and decide whether, when, and how to have and parent children with dignity, free from discrimination, coercion, or violence.

With its presence on 100 campuses, including some that are in very ideologically conservative states, LSRJ has provided a forum for students to learn how they as lawyers can be part of the Reproductive Justice (RJ) movement. RJ is a framework, created by women of color leadership that expands traditional notions of reproductive rights (typically centered on abortion and birth control), and takes into account the ways that race, class, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender expression, immigration status, and ability impact access, agency and autonomy in shaping ones reproductive destiny. Or put more simply, what does having the right to abortion or birth control mean if you cannot exercise that right due to poverty, immigration status, or disability? Or, what if you just want the right to have and parent children in a safe and supported way?

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

I was proud of President Obama when he signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, a legal step towards pay equity for women.I was proud when he placed a personal phone call to Janice Lengbehn, who was denied access to her dying partner in a Florida hospital, to tell her he was sorry and that he had ordered a new rule to prevent something like that from happening to other families.But this Administration just doesn’t seem to get that our ability to decide when and whether to have a child is as critical to autonomy and health as equal pay and legal recognition of our families.

You recall Plan B – also known as the “morning after pill.”Some of you have probably used it.Some of you may have heard that it really causes abortions and that it’s not safe.But those are myths.In fact, Plan B can’t harm an existing pregnancy, and is a safe way to prevent pregnancy if used within 120 hours after sex (or a sexual assault)Emergency contraception, under a different brand name, is available over the counter to women of all ages in many countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe– even in Ireland, a country with restrictive abortion laws.

But the drug is so controversial in the United States, that it is treated differently than any other drug in the nation.It must be kept behind the counter, and a pharmacist must confirm the purchaser’s age, before selling it – even though it is technically an “over-the-counter” drug for women age 17 and over.Today, the federal Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) was prepared to make the drug an over-the-counter product just like many other safe medications.Women across the country were holding their breath, waiting for yet another legal barrier to reproductive health to be lifted.Then, this morning, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the FDA blocking its decision, claiming that it had not done enough research on whether really young girls can safely use the drug.

What does that mean for girls?It means that girls under 17 still need a prescription to get Plan B.We are lucky in Washington, because many pharmacists in our state are authorized by law to prescribe Plan B right there in the pharmacy.Not so for girls in many other states, including Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.And what does it mean for women? It means that a pharmacist is still the gatekeeper of your medication, and may refuse to dispense it, requiring you to try to find it somewhere else while the clock is ticking.

Today’s action is an incredible disappointment for those who expected the current Administration to uphold its promise to make regulatory decisions grounded in science.And it is unacceptable to trade women’s health and reproductive autonomy for perceived political gain.I’m hoping this is the last time, and that we don’t see the President betray us again by giving religiously-affiliated employers the right to opt out of a new rule requiring all employers to include contraception in their employees’ insurance plans.But I suggest we don’t sit back and expect this Administration to hold the line for us.

Find us here too:

Donate

Did you like this blog post? Invest in our work and let's create change together.

Thanks for signing up!

Stay in Touch!

Want to know more about creating change for women in the Northwest? Sign up to receive Legal Voice updates, delivered right to your inbox!

Email Address

First Name

Last Name

By submitting this form, you are granting Legal Voice permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email.

Speaking of Women's Rights...

is the blog for Legal Voice. Legal Voice pursues justice for all women and girls in the Northwest, through ground-breaking legislation, legislative advocacy, and educational tools to help individuals understand their rights.

We love our guest bloggers and their unique, powerful perspectives. Please note that guest bloggers' opinions are their own.